Kathy Griffin Comes to Cincinnati

[xeus]

I'm sitting with Snipe and Garvin.

Kathy Griffin (http://cincinnati.metromix.com/events/article/q-and-a-kathy/1405098/content)

[Kahns Krazy]

before

http://www.ienhance.com/images/Doctors/nassif/kgBefore.jpg

after

http://inyourface.freedomblogging.com/files/2008/06/kathy-griffin-092607.jpg

[DAllen15]

And about 20 years apart, but that's too complex a concept for KK to grasp. Someone explain it to him.

[GoMuskies]

Gary gets a shout out. Nice. So is it good or bad pub to have Kathy talking about Xavier?

[Kahns Krazy]

And about 20 surgeries apart, but that's too complex a concept for KK to grasp. Someone explain it to him.

Fixed that for you.

[Lamont Sanford]

Is that Nancy Pelosi?

[DAllen15]

What???? My sister's had some work done??? Boy, that KK is one ahead-of-the-curve guy! He is really "Mr. Breaking News"! Or maybe Mr. Obvious and Behind the Times.

[Cheesehead]

I love her show and her specials but at $50.00 for the CHEAPEST seats, I will be passing. Hell, I got (2) Final 4 tickets for $360.00

[XUglow]

Gary, she can take care of herself. I have told the story before where she was going to interview my date on the red carpet, and she told me while we were waiting for them to come back to her to just stand there and look pretty. After a few seconds, she looked at me and said, "Try harder."

[DAllen15]

I find it interesting that the guys who dislike me the most, routinely bring me up in their posts, while I never initiate any mention of them in mine. Go figure.

[XUglow]

I find it interesting that the guys who dislike me the most, routinely bring me up in their posts, while I never initiate any mention of them in mine. Go figure.

Is that directed at me????

[blobfan]

Is that directed at me????

Probably not but isn't mentioning that you don't mention someone sort of like mentioning that person?

[Kahns Krazy]

I find it interesting that the guys who dislike me the most, routinely bring me up in their posts, while I never initiate any mention of them in mine. Go figure.


Is that directed at me????


Probably not but isn't mentioning that you don't mention someone sort of like mentioning that person?

It must be directed at GoMuskies.

Hater.

[GoMuskies]

I actually never really got the Gary hate back at MM. The XavierHoops Gary is a bit more hostile (granted, it's a lot more hostile towards him, too).

[Pluto]

I find it interesting that the guys who dislike me the most, routinely bring me up in their posts, while I never initiate any mention of them in mine. Go figure.

I don't get the whole thing...I have met you at a couple of Chicago Alumni events and you have been nothing but nice to me and my wife.

[vee4xu]

And about 20 years apart, but that's too complex a concept for KK to grasp. Someone explain it to him.

Gary, you should leave tickets to your sister's show at the Will Call for KK. KK is a reasonable guy and it would be a good first step to burying the hatchet. What do you think KK? I've met Gary a couple of times too and he's a nice guy. His perspective is a bit tilted toward pessimism and he likes to debate issues. But, hey that doesn't matter to me. As for debating, don't all lawyers like to do that?

[GuyFawkes38]

I don't get the whole thing...I have met you at a couple of Chicago Alumni events and you have been nothing but nice to me and my wife.

It's all coming from four angry, irrational posters.

You would think that they would have the decency to avoid attacking poster's family members.

Does this type of stuff happen on other boards?

[XUglow]

Does this type of stuff happen on other boards?

Yes. I stopped reading one board earlier this year because every thread became a pissing match between a couple of posters. One the fray started, everyone just started taking sides, and the original topic became irrelevant.

[vee4xu]

Yes. I stopped reading one board earlier this year because every thread became a pissing match between a couple of posters. One the fray started, everyone just started taking sides, and the original topic became irrelevant.

So what your saying is that you went back to MM?

[XUglow]

So what your saying is that you went back to MM?

No. I wasting time elsewhere. Hard to believe, yet true.

[Strange Brew]

Gary, err DAllen is Kathy's brother? If true, that makes sense.

[vee4xu]

Gary, err DAllen is Kathy's brother? If true, that makes sense.

It be true Strange Brew. Gary Griffin and Kathy Griffin are brother and sister.

[Billy]

It's all coming from four angry, irrational posters.

You would think that they would have the decency to avoid attacking poster's family members.

Does this type of stuff happen on other boards?

Yes. This.

I like all of you. But seriously, the KG jokes are pretty old, and kind of classless.

[PM Thor]

Seriously, what's with the animosity? I think people hold onto grudges way too long. Heck, Gary banned me after I wrote that I would not mind having private relations with his sister (on that other board). What do I care now? What does he care now?

This is not a very "big picture" thing going on here.

I HATE dayton.

[xeus]

But seriously, the KG jokes are pretty old, and kind of classless.

Someone should tell KG the Catholic Church jokes are pretty old, and kind of classless.

[GuyFawkes38]

Someone should tell KG the Catholic Church jokes are pretty old, and kind of classless.

I do think she crosses the line at times.

But there is a long tradition of Catholic comedians who poke fun at the Catholic Church (Jews do the same thing to Judaism).

Of course, it would be a different matter if someone who didn't have a Catholic upbringing made such jokes (same thing with Judaism).

[Billy]

Someone should tell KG the Catholic Church jokes are pretty old, and kind of classless.

So are you going to take on every comedian that makes Catholic jokes?

You're not doing this to insult or incite her. While this is obviously the world's most important message board, she's not going to read this.

[xeus]

So are you going to take on every comedian that makes Catholic jokes?

You're not doing this to insult or incite her. While this is obviously the world's most important message board, she's not going to read this.

What did I do to insult or incite anyone?

[Masterofreality]

Seriously, what's with the animosity? I think people hold onto grudges way too long.
I HATE dayton.

Sort of like PM's udump fixation. Valid fixation, no doubt, but a long-term grudge I believe? :D

As for my compadre', classmate and fellow LHS member DAllen, my friends, he deserves respect for having been through the wars of horriffic Xavier basketball for years upon years. He has the scars of defeats and from having the slings and arrows flung at him in the MECCA in Milwaukee from Marquette Warrior (yes Warrior) fans- along with having the same thing happen in many, many other venues. He has paid his dues and, to me, is a "made man" in the world of Xavier fandom.

Do he and I agree on everything and do we have the same perspective and outlook? Hell, no, but he is entitled to express what he thinks. So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, put me squarely in the category of having DAllen's back- although I will continue to vehemently disagree with his takes when I feel warranted.

There, Moose, I'll expect that free plane ticket to LALA Land in my Fed Ex box by next Friday!:)

[Billy]

What did I do to insult or incite anyone?

Did you start this thread because you really care that much (one way or the other) about her?

You're a good dude, xeus (even though I'm not sure if we've met in person). I think Gary's a good dude, too (I have met him). These threads only have one direction that they can go.

Just one man's opinion. Take it for what it's worth (perhaps not much).

[GoMuskies]

These threads only have one direction that they can go.


Given the direction of this thread, it looks like you're mistaken.

[xudash]

We need a summit.

Dana Gardens.

Our four or so friends who can't get along, one Jesuit Priest as moderator, preferrably Father Graham, and as many drunken gentlemen from this and other Xavier messageboards as can make it to add value to the proceedings.

The risk is that things will be resolved, but no one will remember.

We need to get some of you guys eye to eye with each other and out from behind a keyboard and screen. A little face-to-face diplomacy should go a long way, since virtually everyone here and on MM loves Xavier and Xavier basketball.

If a couple of fans have a difference of opinion over the skill level or something done by Player A in a particular game, or if a coaching decision merits discussion, all that will come from that is opinion, constructive or otherwise, as expressed on these boards. That's it; that's all - people expressing their opinion, nothing more and nothing less. Having done that, Player A will still be Player A, and the coach will still believe he knows more about basketball than any fan, whether he in fact made a good or bad decision at the time. I think they relate some of that to hindsight and some more of it to 'heat of the moment' kinds of stuff - it's pretty easy to beat it up after it took place (e.g. failing to foul before the 3-point shooter gets his shot off).

I like all you guys and I may have met a few of you. I don't agree with every basketball post made here, but I know I don't have to mount my keyboard battle station and blast away about it. If I can sit here and type something as though I'm sitting across the table from you having a beer, then I would hope most of what I contribute here is constructive and thought out, whether you agree with it or not.

Finally, MOR made a very valid point for some of us. I was after his time on Victory Parkway, but before victories started coming back to it in a meaningful fashion. Xavier has achieved great things and I believe it will achieve even greater things as we move forward from now. But if you don't think that some nagging, negative tug takes place against you as a result of - in my case - 4 years of Tay Baker basketball, you are sadly mistaken. I still believe our conference affiliation is an issue and a risk, but I know we're solid and that we have a great program. It's just that those aging toxins make some of us worry about things more than others. Maybe some of you younger guys look at us like we're dentures-central or something, but Gary, MOR and some number of us can be cut some slack for experiencing that less stellar era of X hoops.

[sweet16]

Well said Dash!!!!

[Billy]

We need a summit.

Maybe some of you younger guys look at us like we're dentures-central or something, but Gary, MOR and some number of us can be cut some slack for experiencing The War of 1812 first hand.

It's a good point.

[DAllen15]

It's hard to forget those 10-16, 5-21, 9-17 and 12-14 years. We keep waiting for the other shoe to drop.

[xeus]

You're a good dude, xeus (even though I'm not sure if we've met in person).

And you're a good dude if for no other reason than you changed your Blagojevich avatar.

[Billy]

And you're a good dude if for no other reason than you changed your Blagojevich avatar.

Justice will be done. The truth will set him free!!

[Pluto]

Justice will be done. The truth will set him free!!

or as he has said "I have nothing to fear but the TRUTH!"

[xudash]

See, even a few mellow threads on one of Illinois' most ethical politicians. We can even talk politics.

And Billy, funny stuff.

If you don't believe age has its advantages, let me tell you that Admiral Perry was a party animal. After the big naval exchange, he put into Put-In-Bay and we drank jello shots for three days to celebrate it.

I woke up in Toledo with a Shawnee babe next to me.

[wkrq59]

I agree with Dash on his previous thorough post on this matter.
I add my opinion for what ever it's worth; some of these immature pissing contests are what leads me from time to time to stop reading either board to keep my stomach acid low.
And, as far as I'm concerned, personal attacks or comments about a poster's family--ANY POSTER--are or should be forbidden. Stuff like that is chicken-dung.:D:D

[xeus]

Moved to House of Smack.

Kathy Griffin doesn't get a free pass because she's related to Gary. If she can say "Suck it, Jesus" then she's fair game for comment as far as I'm concerned.

[Masterofreality]

Moved to House of Smack.

Kathy Griffin doesn't get a free pass because she's related to Gary. If she can say "Suck it, Jesus" then she's fair game for comment as far as I'm concerned.

KGriffin doesn't have a monopoly on tasteless comedy. There are a whole lot of disgusting, infantile comedians out there who, I'm sure, a lot of people on this board find absolutely hilarious. I enjoy some of Kathy's stuff, some of it makes me cringe, but she has a right to say it. If enough people like it, she'll get paid, if not, gigs magically disappear.

Connecting KGriffin's comedy style with a slam on her brother, who has his own life and happens to be a Xavier guy, fan and poster on boards is like saying that David Dahmer is the same guy as Jeffrey.

You may like her act, you may not, but I sure don't mind the fact that she mentioned Xavier in her interview. In the meantime, the only people I see posting on any board that seem to fixate on the fact that Kathy Griffin is related to said Xavier brother don't have the last name of Griffin. The one who does has never flaunted it.

[muskienick]

See, even a few mellow threads on one of Illinois' most ethical politicians. We can even talk politics.

And Billy, funny stuff.

If you don't believe age has its advantages, let me tell you that Admiral Perry was a party animal. After the big naval exchange, he put into Put-In-Bay and we drank jello shots for three days to celebrate it.

I woke up in Toledo with a Shawnee babe next to me.

I'm disappointed in you, Dash! One would have expected the Native American lass to either be under or atop you as you awoke from your slumber!

[xeus]

Connecting KGriffin's comedy style with a slam on her brother, who has his own life and happens to be a Xavier guy, fan and poster on boards is like saying that David Dahmer is the same guy as Jeffrey.

You may like her act, you may not, but I sure don't mind the fact that she mentioned Xavier in her interview. In the meantime, the only people I see posting on any board that seem to fixate on the fact that Kathy Griffin is related to said Xavier brother don't have the last name of Griffin. The one who does has never flaunted it.

MOR, I don't know if you're talking about me, but I didn't slam her brother. In fact, I've generally defended Gary on this board. I didn't post about Kathy Griffin because she's Gary's sister. I posted because she mentions Xavier in her interview, and she's in town and on the front page of the Enquirer. Not what I'd call a fixation.

[Masterofreality]

MOR, I don't know if you're talking about me, but I didn't slam her brother. In fact, I've generally defended Gary on this board. I didn't post about Kathy Griffin because she's Gary's sister. I posted because she mentions Xavier in her interview, and she's in town and on the front page of the Enquirer. Not what I'd call a fixation.

Gawd, eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeasy, my man.

No, not you Xeus. There are others on both boards, however, that do have this fixation that a Xavier guy who some know has a celeb sister. It's irrelevant.

[nuts4xu]

Kathy Griffin is a celebrity who makes her living bashing other celebrities like Brittney Spears, Michael Jackson, and her own mother (according to the Enquirer this morning). She is in the pubilc eye and is open for discussion, no matter what is discussed.

Sorry Gary, it isn't personal. It is just part of the territory. Celebs are subject to criticism both good and bad. This is part of their job. I do not advocate blasting the family of other posters, but Kathy Griffin is not immune to discussion. Hell, the crazy broad even mentioned Gary in her act last night.

[Fred Garvin]

before

http://www.ienhance.com/images/Doctors/nassif/kgBefore.jpg

after

http://inyourface.freedomblogging.com/files/2008/06/kathy-griffin-092607.jpg

Is that Andy Dick in drag?

[Kahns Krazy]

See also

http://www.rock107.ca/morningshow/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/carrot-top-after.jpg

http://www.thumperscorner.com/discus/messages/36043/38055.jpg

[nuts4xu]

http://inyourface.freedomblogging.com/files/2008/06/kathy-griffin-092607.jpghttp://www.thumperscorner.com/discus/messages/36043/38055.jpg

No Doubt, these two were separated at birth.

[GuyFawkes38]

nuts and kahns are so funny. sure.

[Fred Garvin]

nuts and kahns are so funny. sure.


this from a guy who is batting .000 on the comedy front.

[GuyFawkes38]

this from a guy who is batting .000 on the comedy front.


ouch. yeah.

[surfxu]

Maybe we can all agree that THIS (http://videoguide.msn.com/play/tv/?g=0b8ceb09-1bc3-44db-9bbb-8c8da15fbcc9&ftitle=latest%20celebrity%20buzz&fid=mostwatchedcelebrity&GT1=42007) is kind of funny. John and Kate spoof from the Jimmy Kimmel show.

[boozehound]

The runtime error that I got when I clicked that link wasn't very funny...

[Emp]

KGriffin doesn't have a monopoly on tasteless comedy. There are a whole lot of disgusting, infantile comedians out there who, I'm sure, a lot of people on this board find absolutely hilarious. I enjoy some of Kathy's stuff, some of it makes me cringe, but she has a right to say it. If enough people like it, she'll get paid, if not, gigs magically disappear.

Connecting KGriffin's comedy style with a slam on her brother, who has his own life and happens to be a Xavier guy, fan and poster on boards is like saying that David Dahmer is the same guy as Jeffrey.

You may like her act, you may not, but I sure don't mind the fact that she mentioned Xavier in her interview. In the meantime, the only people I see posting on any board that seem to fixate on the fact that Kathy Griffin is related to said Xavier brother don't have the last name of Griffin. The one who does has never flaunted it.

Totally agree, MOR.

And WTF is this about DAllen/Griffin getting banned from the board. This is a junior high lunchroom some times, but other times it reminds me of killing and eating our own.

[Kahns Krazy]

Totally agree, MOR.

And WTF is this about DAllen/Griffin getting banned from the board. This is a junior high lunchroom some times, but other times it reminds me of killing and eating our own.

I get it. That's funny.

[xeus]

And WTF is this about DAllen/Griffin getting banned from the board. This is a junior high lunchroom some times, but other times it reminds me of killing and eating our own.

Don't worry Emp, Gary banned all XH mods from Musketeer Madness. Guess he showed us.

And I do agree that Gary seems like the type to eat his own.

[Fred Garvin]

Connecting KGriffin's comedy style with a slam on her brother, who has his own life and happens to be a Xavier guy, fan and poster on boards is like saying that David Dahmer is the same guy as Jeffrey.

You may like her act, you may not, but I sure don't mind the fact that she mentioned Xavier in her interview. In the meantime, the only people I see posting on any board that seem to fixate on the fact that Kathy Griffin is related to said Xavier brother don't have the last name of Griffin. The one who does has never flaunted it.

Never flaunted it? What a sack of lies. He always alerted us to her appearances whether the "Curb" appearance or even dating to "Shakes the Clown" back in the old days.

Gary Griffin is vermin. Only thing worse are his queer defenders with their "I met Gary and he seemed like a good guy" responses. They're invariably guys who don't go back to the beginning of these boards. Assholes like Billy who have no knowledge of Gary and his behind the scenes machinations lo these many years.

[waggy]

Fred, are you really No Pants?

[waggy]

Also, there was a poll in the supporting members forum (forum for those people that support this forum financially) - and they voted overwhelmingly to not ban GG. Just so you know.

[DC Muskie]

I saw Kathy Griffin on Real Time on Friday, and no disrespect to Gary, who I think is a good guy, Kathy Griffin is not funny in the least.

Just like I have no tolerance for people who tell you how much they LOVE Jesus, I share that view with people who have NO love for Jesus.

But beside that, I never understood the back and forth between some people on Gary.

[Kahns Krazy]

Also, there was a poll in the supporting members forum (forum for those people that support this forum financially) - and they voted overwhelmingly to not ban GG. Just so you know.

That is not true. The poll was manipulated. At one point there were far more votes than members of the site.

[xeus]

That is not true. The poll was manipulated. At one point there were far more votes than members of the site.

That was my fault. It was a difficult time for me. I had just begun my volunteer work with ACORN and I thought it was OK to manipulate the numbers like I did.

Actually, I was trying to see if in fact poll numbers could be manually changed. I changed the one number to 4192 and forgot to change it back.

[bobbiemcgee]

I saw Kathy Griffin on Real Time on Friday, and no disrespect to Gary, who I think is a good guy, Kathy Griffin is not funny in the least.

Just like I have no tolerance for people who tell you how much they LOVE Jesus, I share that view with people who have NO love for Jesus.

But beside that, I never understood the back and forth between some people on Gary.

I agree. Don't find her funny in the least. Lousy interview too, constantly interrupts and injects idiotic nonsense into the "conversation". And who the hell cares about her botched "elective" plastic surgeries. GROSS.

[Lamont Sanford]

And who the hell cares about her botched "elective" plastic surgeries. GROSS.

Hilarious. Good stuff.

Is Sherwin Williams her makeup artist as well? Good Lord, lighten up on the foundation.

[D-West & PO-Z]

That is not true. The poll was manipulated. At one point there were far more votes than members of the site.

Ya, I was going to say the same thing. The vote was actually quite close.

[Stonebreaker]

Let me know where she is so that i can avoid her.

[waggy]

The poll I see says 18-2. Griffin is a god around here. :D

[DC Muskie]

Let me know where she is so that i can avoid her.

Ha! I actually don't think it's that hard actually. Last week was the first time I ever spent more then a minute watching her...

[Kahns Krazy]

Hilarious. Good stuff.

Is Sherwin Williams her makeup artist as well? Good Lord, lighten up on the foundation.

Snipe one time called Sherwin Anderson "Sherwin Williams" when he called in to some talk radio show. He caught himself pretty quickly and admitted that he had named the paint. It was pretty funny. I wish I had a tape of Snipe's radio calls.

[Snipe]

They were all a part of one massive tirade against the Bob Huggins political machine.

I did my best to engender bad blood among the Muskies and the Bearcats. And Saint Bob gave me so much material. I do miss the man.

[Fred Garvin]

I saw Kathy Griffin on Real Time on Friday, and no disrespect to Gary, who I think is a good guy, Kathy Griffin is not funny in the least.

Just like I have no tolerance for people who tell you how much they LOVE Jesus, I share that view with people who have NO love for Jesus.



Kathy Griffin isn't just not funny, she's a bigot. All you have to do is take her typical comment about "catholics" and replace it with "jew." Of course that wouldn't fly in Hollywood. And that's another thing I hate about these poseurs who pose as cutting edge. In truth they are just company town peons.

[DC Muskie]

Kathy Griffin isn't just not funny, she's a bigot. All you have to do is take her typical comment about "catholics" and replace it with "jew."

I don't disagree. Somehow her book is a best seller, which again proves that best seller lists are not intended to mean "best books that sell very well."

[boozehound]

Kathy Griffin isn't just not funny, she's a bigot. All you have to do is take her typical comment about "catholics" and replace it with "jew." Of course that wouldn't fly in Hollywood. And that's another thing I hate about these poseurs who pose as cutting edge. In truth they are just company town peons.

Come on man. Do you hate South Park too?

I haven't heard Kathy Griffin in years and I don't remember ever finding her funny, but I can't see getting so bent out of shape about someone bad mouthing the Catholic chruch.

[Fred Garvin]

Come on man. Do you hate South Park too?

I haven't heard Kathy Griffin in years and I don't remember ever finding her funny, but I can't see getting so bent out of shape about someone bad mouthing the Catholic chruch.

South Park satirizes everyone and everthing. Kathy Griffin mercilessly attacks catholics and Republicans in an effort to ingratiate herself with her gay fanbase. If you don't see the difference then that's your problem.

[Kahns Krazy]

Come on man. Do you hate South Park too?

I haven't heard Kathy Griffin in years and I don't remember ever finding her funny, but I can't see getting so bent out of shape about someone bad mouthing the Catholic chruch.

How can you defend an act and make a comparison to something else whithout ever hearing the act?

"Oh that Hitler guy isn't so bad. He's just like Walt Disney! Do you hate the Little Mermaid?"

[boozehound]

How can you defend an act and make a comparison to something else whithout ever hearing the act?

"Oh that Hitler guy isn't so bad. He's just like Walt Disney! Do you hate the Little Mermaid?"

I don't recall defending her, I just can't believe that some people are getting so bent out of shape about a bad stand up comedian trashing the church. Frankly, people getting all pissed off about her comments is probably what she was going for, because we have all been talking about her for 6 weeks now.

Also, I haven't seen her act and I probably won't take the time to do so anytime soon, but I would find it hard to believe that what she is saying about the church could be anything worse than what South Park has said about the church. Again, I haven't seen her act, but South Park has had some pretty messed up episodes about the church.

[Kahns Krazy]

And Disney had some pretty messed up ideas about Jews. Why are people so much more bent out of shape about Hitler?

[boozehound]

And Disney had some pretty messed up ideas about Jews. Why are people so much more bent out of shape about Hitler?

I think that it probably has something to do with the fact that he took over much of Europe and killed 5 million Jews. If Walt Disney had done that, I'm pretty sure people would have hated him as well.

[DC Muskie]

Booze-

To me, there's a big difference in South Park joking about Jews, and Kathy Griffin talking on a show about how the entire religion of Catholicism is "bullshit." That's not funny. Especially when she says it to a guy who thinks the entire concept of religion is "bullshit."

[boozehound]

Booze-

To me, there's a big difference in South Park joking about Jews, and Kathy Griffin talking on a show about how the entire religion of Catholicism is "bullshit." That's not funny. Especially when she says it to a guy who thinks the entire concept of religion is "bullshit."

That is where we differ I guess. I think that she is entitled to her beliefs, and entitled to voice her beliefs. We may disagree with her, but I am not going to hate someone for voicing an opinion different from my own.

There are probably a lot of people who think that the Catholic religion is BS, just like there are probably a lot of Catholics who think that Judiasm is BS, and Buddhism is BS, and so on. A lot of religions sound like BS to people that don't believe in them. Wars have been fought for thousands of years because people think that other people's religions are BS.

I just don't understand getting all up in arms because a B-list celebrity said that they think the Catholic religion is BS. Is the Catholic religion so frail that Kathy freaking Griffin saying it is BS is going to damage it? I hope not?

I am Catholic by the way.

[DC Muskie]

Booze-

No one is saying she's not entitled to her opinion. There are plenty of people who have it. That's fine. I'm Catholic. I work with and am friends with people who think Catholicism is bullshit.

Believe me, I'm not up in arms over someone I have only watched once for about 5 minutes. It seems to me that she prides herself and markets herself as someone who believes Catholicism is bullshit. When I saw her she wore it like a badge of honor, "Catholicsm is bullshit, JACKPOT!" I may be wrong. But I don't care. It's just my opinion. She's not funny.

[bobbiemcgee]

The Wanda Sykes HBO Special tonite....now there is one funny lady...hilarious.

[Snipe]

Can't we all just get along?

[GuyFawkes38]

There are probably a lot of people who think that the Catholic religion is BS, just like there are probably a lot of Catholics who think that Judiasm is BS, and Buddhism is BS, and so on. A lot of religions sound like BS to people that don't believe in them. Wars have been fought for thousands of years because people think that other people's religions are BS.


The big point here is that if your Catholic, it's okay to poke fun of Catholicism but not Judaism or Islam. That would be truly offensive.

Furthermore, I've always admired the willingness of Catholics to poke fun of their religion. Sure, such jokes might cast doubt on some principles. But any religion which confronts doubt is healthier.

[Fred Garvin]

The big point here is that if your Catholic, it's okay to poke fun of Catholicism but not Judaism or Islam. That would be truly offensive.



Not this argument again. The "I'm one of'em, so I can say whatever." Maybe I should convert to Judaism so I can get in some good anti-semitic material.

I mean what would be the difference between that and Kathy Griffin ripping Catholics? She's not catholic, she was merely raised Catholic. Wouldn't this put her in your outsider group? Maybe this is why she is "truly offensive." Guy, thanks for opening my eyes to Griffin's hate speech.

[DC Muskie]

Hey guys here's a funny joke...

I'm Catholic and I think it's bullshit. My mother is going crazy!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Try the veal, tip your waitress and the 9:00 show is completely different than the 7:00 show!

[boozehound]

Not this argument again. The "I'm one of'em, so I can say whatever." Maybe I should convert to Judaism so I can get in some good anti-semitic material.

I mean what would be the difference between that and Kathy Griffin ripping Catholics? She's not catholic, she was merely raised Catholic. Wouldn't this put her in your outsider group? Maybe this is why she is "truly offensive." Guy, thanks for opening my eyes to Griffin's hate speech.

You can convert to whatever religion you want and bash whatever religion you chose. I don't give a shit, just like I don't give a shit about what Kathy Griffin thinks about catholocism.

Why waste the time and energy hating a 3rd rate comedian for her religious beliefs or lack thereof?

Hell, this is probably the most publicity she has gotten in 10 years.

[xu95]

I have only listened to Kathy when she is on the Howard Stern show. And I have to say, in that situation she is funny as heck.

xu95

[Emp]

Not this argument again. The "I'm one of'em, so I can say whatever." Maybe I should convert to Judaism so I can get in some good anti-semitic material.

I mean what would be the difference between that and Kathy Griffin ripping Catholics? She's not catholic, she was merely raised Catholic. Wouldn't this put her in your outsider group? Maybe this is why she is "truly offensive." Guy, thanks for opening my eyes to Griffin's hate speech.

I cant put my finger on it, but for example Robert Klein talking about being called a JewBoy is funny. Being called a JewBoy was certainly not funny, but because he is Jewish and can mock the voice that gives voice to Jewboy putdowns, it works. Well for me.

Richard Pryor could use the N word and make it funny in a way that a person who has never suffered the indignity of the word in the real world could not.

The "raised catholic but not practicing", vs "still a practicing catholic" distinction really doesn't hold up. If you did the time, you got your right to make the beef, or the humor, depending on your perception. I dont think ex cons are DQed from doing prison humor, any more than ex-catlicks on catholicism and catholic culture.

I can understand why (practicing) catholics might wince or worse over. for example, jokes about priests and boys, but Ive heard some wince and laugh routines I thought were funny -- without questioning the credentials of the comic.

What IS ironic is banging on "truly offensive" hating in this forum. Please. Gay and liberal truly offensive stuff, good times! Barack as Jesus, most excellent. Catholic bashing, frownie face.

[Fred Garvin]

What IS ironic is banging on "truly offensive" hating in this forum. Please. Gay and liberal truly offensive stuff, good times! Barack as Jesus, most excellent. Catholic bashing, frownie face.

And yet it is guys like you who say Rush Limbaugh shouldn't own an NFL team.
Face it, you liberals are for all the free speech that you agree with.

[Fred Garvin]

BTW, notice how the Emp is Defender of the Gays. He wants to limit others speech in regard to this group. I'm sure he defended GLAAD's pressurng P&G to put the kibosh on Dr.Laura's tv show because she correctly stated that gays suffer from a "biological defect."

And he kid's himself that he has the open mind.

[bobbiemcgee]

And yet it is guys like you who say Rush Limbaugh shouldn't own an NFL team.
Face it, you liberals are for all the free speech that you agree with.

I'm not surprised, he's always shown a preference for bad management.

[DC Muskie]

It's nice to see Fred stay on topic.

[boozehound]

And yet it is guys like you who say Rush Limbaugh shouldn't own an NFL team.
Face it, you liberals are for all the free speech that you agree with.

Come on, most republicans are the same damn way. Everybody is all for free speech when they agree with the topic. When they disagree both sides decry the other party's 'free speech' as 'dangerous' or 'bad for the country'.

Both sides of the political spectrum are largely populated by a bunch of braying jackasses. Who is bitching the loudest just depends on who has the least political power at the time.

[Lamont Sanford]

Kathy Griffin's about as funny as a busload of puppies going up in flames.

End of story.

[American X]

Come on, most republicans are the same damn way. Everybody is all for free speech when they agree with the topic. When they disagree both sides decry the other party's 'free speech' as 'dangerous' or 'bad for the country'.

I don't think that's accurate.

Freedom of correct speech / everyone is entitled to an opinion that agrees with mine is a much stronger tendency of the left.

[bobbiemcgee]

Kathy must have been on TV last nite:

http://denver.craigslist.org/ele/1390245082.html

[boozehound]

I don't think that's accurate.

Freedom of correct speech / everyone is entitled to an opinion that agrees with mine is a much stronger tendency of the left.

That's fine. I'll bet that most democrats would feel the other way.

I would argue that the republicans are at least as bad as the Democrats on this issue. I seem to remember a lot of retards on Fox News decrying people as Un-American for voicing opinions against the Irag War. Those same pundits are now encouraging the "Tea Parties" where guys with guns hold up signs about how the president is a communist, and Rush Limbaugh is on the air saying that he hopes Obama fails as president.

I would not call myself a republican or a democrat, although I am much more right-leaning than left-leaning. We can argue who is worse all day long, but to me that is like arguing whether it is worse to be punched in the nuts or kicked in the nuts. They are both pretty bad, and I don't really like either option right now.

[Xpectations]

I also believe that followers of both parties are generally hypocritical regarding their beliefs on free speech -- and on a relatively equivalent basis.

The public repudiation of anti-War protesters by pro-War supporters during the Bush administration and the same regarding anti-public health plan protestors during the current administration are great examples of that. Many side-leaning media pundits and hardcore supporters of both parties would rather try to make their opponents shut up by claiming their opinion is un-American -- not just wrong -- rather than debate issues on merit.

That said, I do believe the officials and politicians of the Democratic Party do tend to be more anti-free speech than their Republican counterparts -- not just in rhetoric, but in practice. For example, I believe the number of Democrats who support the Fairness Doctrine is an excellent example of that.

As someone who believes that the most overwhelmingly important governing issue when it comes to public policy at this moment is fiscal responsibility, I do not consider myself a Democrat or Republican. Each of those parties have proven themselves to be incredibly and increasingly irresponsible.

Thus, I have little interest in trying to make one party (or person) look better than another in a political debate simply for the sake of doing so. I just call it like I see it without feeling the need to protect or defend either party that I think is currently a joke.

[Fred Garvin]

That said, I do believe the officials and politicians of the Democratic Party do tend to be more anti-free speech than their Republican counterparts -- not just in rhetoric, but in practice. For example, I believe the number of Democrats who support the Fairness Doctrine is an excellent example of that.



And now the attempts to marginalize Fox News. We once had a poster who referenced Nixon at every turn. Well, what's more Nixonian than this?

[boozehound]

And now the attempts to marginalize Fox News. We once had a poster who referenced Nixon at every turn. Well, what's more Nixonian than this?

Fox News marginalizes itself.

[Fred Garvin]

Fox News marginalizes itself.

That's why they have twice the viewers of CNN and MSNBC combined. Also, I'm really sick of your "I'm such a sober social observer, I really elevate the conversation" routine.

[boozehound]

That's why they have twice the viewers of CNN and MSNBC combined. Also, I'm really sick of your "I'm such a sober social observer, I really elevate the conversation" routine.

First of all, the viewership numbers that you have stated are not factual. Fox news averages around 2.84MM viewers per weekday while CNN averages 1.37 and MSNBC averages 1.16, so it is not even close to "twice the viewers of CNN and MSNBC combined." These are figures from February of 2009, so while they may have changed since then it is unlikley that they have changed enough to make your statement true.

Getting past that, Fox News has a built-in advantage over CNN and MSNBC in that they are the sole right wing news source in a cable news industry that is dominated by left-leaning news outlets. Also, the average age of Fox News viewers is around 65 years old which suggests that Fox News could be approaching the apex of its popularity as their viewship begins to, literally, die off.

Even with those somewhat mitigating factors, Fox News' viewership is impressive. They have grown viewership quite a bit during the Obama administration as well.

As for you being 'sick of my routine' I'm not really sure what you are talking about, and frankly I don't care. I apologize for disagreeing with you, since that seems to be an issue for you.

[Snipe]

Fox News marginalizes itself.

How so and compared to whom?

[boozehound]

How so and compared to whom?

I don't really feel that they can be taken seriously as a news source. That being said, I feel the same way about CNN and MSNBC, as well as a host of others.

My problem with Fox News is that they claim to be fair and balanced but they put a right wing spin on everything. I don't really think that they can be taken seriously as a news source. While much of the news they report is based in fact, it is definitely 'spun'. CNN and MSNBC tend to put a liberal spin on everything, so I am not by any means saying that they are any better.

A better argument might be to state that 24 hour cable news sources marginalize themselves in my view by pandering to a particular side of the political spectrum instead of just reporting the news. I understand that there really isn't enough news to fill 24 hours a day 7 days a week so they end up devoting a lot of time to partisan pundits like Bill O'Reilly and Chris Matthews.

I tend to lean toward the right of center on most issues, but I find Fox News to be a little extreme.

[Snipe]

My problem with Fox News is that they claim to be fair and balanced but they put a right wing spin on everything. I don't really think that they can be taken seriously as a news source.

You said that they marginalized themselves. I asked you "compared to whom?". You did not really answer that question. You just stated that the other networks sucked too.

Comparatively FOX News is the most objective cable outlet out there in my opinion. That was my point in asking. You had nobody that you could site that was better. So why trash the best name in news?

Take a look at this report from the PEW Reseach Center (http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/444.pdf).

Their last annual survey of cable news audiences did a breakdown of party affiliation. This is what it said:


FNC: 39% Republican, 33% Democratic, 22% Independent
CNN: 18% Republican, 51% Democratic, 23% Independent
MSNBC: 18% Republican, 45% Democratic, 27% Independent


Which network would you consider to be "Fair and Ballanced"? Pray tell. Which networks would you consider most partisan? But it gets better. Consider this from your own quote:


Fox news averages around 2.84MM viewers per weekday while CNN averages 1.37 and MSNBC averages 1.16

No go back and look at the percentages brother. Take those percentages and multiply them against the total number of viewers.

Then think about this. The #1 news source in cable news for Democrats is FOX NEWS. The #1 news source for Independents is FOX NEWS. The #1 news source for Republicans is FOX NEWS. And lastly, the #1 source for Xavierhoops.com posters is the F'ing Snipeman.

More Democrats get their news from FOX NEWS than any other cable news network. Reflect on that. I am just trying to report the facts to you my friend.

I report, you decide.

[boozehound]

I don't consider any of the 24 hour news networks fair and balanced.

As for the viewership numbers, I think that a lot of it has to do with the "Howard Stern" effect realized in the 1990's, in which many of Sterns listeners actually hated him, they just wanted to hear what he had to say next. The study that you linked to does not define viewership, either. How much do you have to watch a news outlet to be considered a viewer? 5 minutes a month? 5 minutes a year?

[Xpectations]

I agree that all of the television news outlets are highly suspect in terms of credibility and they have themselves to blame. They are predominantly left leaning with the notable exception being Fox News.

For any of them to label themselves as "fair and balanced" though is laughable.

[Xpectations]

More Democrats get their news from FOX NEWS than any other cable news network. Reflect on that. I am just trying to report the facts to you my friend.

Another true but misleading stat in making your case. The reality is that the VAST MAJORITY of Democrats -- and all Americans for that matter -- get their television news from left-leaning news organizations -- and not just MSNBC and CNN, but CBS, NBC, ABC, etc.

The fact that viewership is so disperesed amongst left-leaning outets is hardly a surprise because there are so many of them versus one right-leaning outlet.

The fact that no single left-leaning outlet wins the ratings war against the sole right-leaning outlet should be completely expected.

I believe Fox also wins because they tend to be more sensationalist in their approach. They have tapped into the fact that Americans love controversy, conspiracy and outrageousness. That is reflected throughout all of the Fox programming network.

People value intrique, conflict and entertainment more than value credibility and impartiality.

I challenge anyone to find an impartial network. They are all very partisan. And Fox is at least as partisan as MSNBC.

[Fred Garvin]

Another true but misleading stat in making your case. The reality is that the VAST MAJORITY of Democrats -- and all Americans for that matter -- get their television news from left-leaning news organizations -- and not just MSNBC and CNN, but CBS, NBC, ABC, etc.

The fact that viewership is so disperesed amongst left-leaning outets is hardly a surprise because there are so many of them versus one right-leaning outlet.

The fact that no single left-leaning outlet wins the ratings war against the sole right-leaning outlet should be completely expected.

I believe Fox also wins because they tend to be more sensationalist in their approach. They have tapped into the fact that Americans love controversy, conspiracy and outrageousness. That is reflected throughout all of the Fox programming network.

People value intrique, conflict and entertainment more than value credibility and impartiality.

I challenge anyone to find an impartial network. They are all very partisan. And Fox is at least as partisan as MSNBC.

I agree about all networks being biased. This was the point of Bernard Goldberg's "Bias" that is always glossed over. He thought bias was inevevitable and your only way of compenstating was diverstity in your media choices. Real diversity. Don't rip Fox while your media choices are The New York Times, NPR, and The Nation. And of course the converse is true.

[Fred Garvin]

BH, So you are saying that both MSNBC and FOX are biased. That's your response? The thread was about the Obama administration's attempts to marginalize Fox, and put a chilling effect on others who dared question the poli-prophet.

Funny how it isn't MNSBC who has their access compromised. No, it is the network that covers Acorn. You did notice that the Obama administration invited MSNBC over for tea and crumpets?

So if you were truly fair you would have said "MSNBC and Fox deserve to be marginalized."

Of course they targeted the conservatives. This validates the original point that liberals can't stand any thought they disagree with.

[Snipe]

Fox News marginalizes itself.


How so and compared to whom?


I don't really feel that they can be taken seriously as a news source. That being said, I feel the same way about CNN and MSNBC, as well as a host of others.

My problem with Fox News is that they claim to be fair and balanced but they put a right wing spin on everything. I don't really think that they can be taken seriously as a news source. While much of the news they report is based in fact, it is definitely 'spun'. CNN and MSNBC tend to put a liberal spin on everything, so I am not by any means saying that they are any better.

If that is what you believe, why would you single out Fox News? Couldn't you just say that all news sources marginalize themselves?

And to the point that Fred was making, it was about the White House marginalizing Fox News by trying to cut them out of the reporter pool. You seemed to concur with that. To you it was somehow Fox's problem that they were cut out of the loop. The current administration has said that they aren't legitimate news, and wants to cut them out. You seem to agree with that in your statements.

I find that troubling on a few levels. I do think Fox News has a conservative bias, but I don't think that Fox's bias is anywhere near some of the bias of some of the other market players. And what is more, you have noted that Fox is alone among media players with a conservative outlook. And yet you seem to support the Administration marginalizing Fox news and cutting them out. The lone voice, and you seem to be fine with it. It is a dangerous precedent and it goes against our first amendment.


I don't consider any of the 24 hour news networks fair and balanced.

Again I would ask, why single out Fox News then? And you qualified this by saying "the 24 hour news networks". Care to give me a list of media outlets that you feel are objective, fair and balanced?

Fox News says that they are fair and balanced and you don't like that. CNN and MSNBC make the same claims in different ways. I know of no media outlet that doesn't make some claim on objective reporting. And you won't find any of them that admit to a slant in reporting the news.


I agree that all of the television news outlets are highly suspect in terms of credibility and they have themselves to blame. They are predominantly left leaning with the notable exception being Fox News.

For any of them to label themselves as "fair and balanced" though is laughable.

Why confine this to the television networks? What about websites and newspapers. Suffice it to say, all of our news is biased in some form. No? Do you have a list of objective sources? As for "predominantly left leaning with the notable exception being Fox News". Can you name another network on television that has been associated with the conservative right? It would be better written if you had said that they are all left leaning except Fox News. You leave the impression that another outlet exists on the television networks that leans to the right. There is none. Indeed, Boozehound and yourself have made the same argument for Fox's ratings.



Another true but misleading stat in making your case. The reality is that the VAST MAJORITY of Democrats -- and all Americans for that matter -- get their television news from left-leaning news organizations -- and not just MSNBC and CNN, but CBS, NBC, ABC, etc.
The fact that viewership is so disperesed amongst left-leaning outets is hardly a surprise because there are so many of them versus one right-leaning outlet.

The fact that no single left-leaning outlet wins the ratings war against the sole right-leaning outlet should be completely expected.

I love your "true but misleading" argument. You admit what I said is true, which it is, but you also add that I am misleading people ("another") time.

You don't apply the same logic to your own arguments.

You say the "the reality is that the VAST MAJORITY of Democrats -- and all Americans for that matter -- get their television news from left-leaning news organizations -- and not just MSNBC and CNN, but CBS, NBC, ABC, etc.

Couldn't I turn that around and say that the reality is that the vast majority of Conservatives get their news from left-leaning news organizations? In fact, that is exactly what you said. But I wasn't talking about all news organizations, which both you and Booze admit are left leaning. And even if this is the case again, why single out Fox News?

I was talking about cable news organizations. If you look at fox viewership it looks more like the makeup of our country in terms of Democrats, Republicans and Independents. They have more Democrats and Indepents watch their network than any other cable news network.

I would also like you to read this study. (http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm) It is entitled A Measure of Media Bias (http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm).

Read through that and it may be an eye opener. They rate Fox News as conservative leaning, but far more objective than the other major media news outlets. Consider this, maybe Fox is considered far to the right just in relation to the rabid leftists that currently control the American News landscape. You both basically admit that they are biased left.

Maybe even a straight down the pike news organisation would be considered right wing in that environment. I think that it would. Fox is right leaning in my estimation. That isn't a newsflash. That doesn't mean that they aren't the most objective. Check out that study.




The fact that viewership is so disperesed amongst left-leaning outets is hardly a surprise because there are so many of them versus one right-leaning outlet.

The fact that no single left-leaning outlet wins the ratings war against the sole right-leaning outlet should be completely expected.

...

I challenge anyone to find an impartial network. They are all very partisan. And Fox is at least as partisan as MSNBC.

You admit that they are all lefties, and Fox is the one right wing outlet. Does that make Fox just as biased? Does it make them more biased? Is it possible they are less biased but the contrast is so radical compared to the rest of the left leaning media?

As for your challenge, that is my challenge as well. They are all partisan, but some are more partisan that others. Just because bias exists doesn't make it all equal out. Just because one cable news network has a slight rightward bent in its news reporting it doesn't equal out having all the other networks going left and attacking with political motives.

Fred started this with the Administrations marginalization of Fox. They came out and attacked them. They said Fox was not a news organisation. They tried to cut them from the reporter pool and kick them out of the White House press corps. Apparently you guys don't see much wrong with that. Boozehound even thinks sometimes that Fox News hurts the Republican Party. If we all agree that it is the one right leaning news outlet, I can't fathom the logic in that thought process. Having one conservative voice in the wild hurts the conservative cause. Sure.

[Xpectations]

Apparently you guys don't see much wrong with that.

I neither said nor implied any such thing. I simply took issue with the notion that Fox's viewership numbers and breakdown made them more fair and balanced, when I believe there are other things in play.

I think it's stupid for the Obama Administration to take them on as they have. But then again, I see stupid decisions come out of that office weekly, if not daily.

I personally think Fox is a joke as I do the other networks. They are party shills to a degree that I only see duplicated by idiots like Olbermann, Maddow, Matthews, etc. on MSNBC. As a result, that is why I believe Fox and MSNBC are the biggest jokes of all.

That doesn't mean I'm in favor of any administration singling them out. If you do that, I'm not sure where you stop, unless you simply stop with news organizations that disagree with you, which is how I see this.

And regarding the point of there being other news outlets; yes there certainly are. The web would be difficult to judge as a whole in terms of leaning right or left. You'd not only have to identify numbers of sights, but more importantly, viewership/impact.

Newspapers tend to be more left leaning but they are becoming increasingly inconsequential.

As far as radio goes, it is right leaning to a degree that cannot be matched by any medium -- not so much in terms of percentages of hosts/stations that are right leaning, but in terms of how strongly and blatently they are right leaning.

At some point it makes you wonder where you could possibly get unbiased news. But it does seem that most people believe the most unbiased news sources are the ones that are most aligned (i.e., biased) with them.

[Strange Brew]

CBS must also be considered a joke as it is the only network that forged documents to discredit a Presidential hopeful just weeks before the election. Sad. They have 0, none, nada credibility.

Further, what really bugs me is the WH has made claims that FOX is not news without proving that the network has reported lies. Just b/c they do not approve to the slant does not mean that the reporting is false. For instances of false reporting please see first paragraph. It makes me wonder what else network news has made up or not reported over the years to push a Leftist agenda.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Who is kathy griffin?

[boozehound]

BH, So you are saying that both MSNBC and FOX are biased. That's your response? The thread was about the Obama administration's attempts to marginalize Fox, and put a chilling effect on others who dared question the poli-prophet.

Funny how it isn't MNSBC who has their access compromised. No, it is the network that covers Acorn. You did notice that the Obama administration invited MSNBC over for tea and crumpets?

So if you were truly fair you would have said "MSNBC and Fox deserve to be marginalized."

Of course they targeted the conservatives. This validates the original point that liberals can't stand any thought they disagree with.

I wasn't 'concerned about being truly fair'. It was a one-liner directed at a news organization that I feel is a joke. It's not like I am writing this stuff in USA Today. I could have just as easily been MSNBC, but you didn't say MSNBC you said Fox. Also, this thread is not about the Obama administration attempting to marginalize Fox News, It was about Kathy Griffin.

This highlights the over-sensitivity that many republicans now seem have to any dig at their party, real or perceived, since Bush left the White House. Fox News is covering Tea Parties with guys holding assault rifles while their pundits stand there with microphones fomenting the crowd. They then report it as news. Let's not act like the evil Obama administration is sending all the republicans to some prison camp to shut them up.

Are you honestly saying that no republican administration has shown preferential treatment to republican-biased news sources? Fox News basically grew up under the Bush administration and had greater access to Bush Administration officials than other news organizations. Now that Obama is president and the shoe is on the other foot everyone is all up in arms about it. Frankly, I don't care who Obama has tea and crumpets with, and I doubt that republicans want to watch some Fox News correspondent kissing Obama's ass like MSNBC would. The Obama administration affords greater access to MSNBC because they know that MSNBC is going to 'play nice' and not ask any questions that they don't want to answer. It is the same situation that Fox News enjoyed during the Bush administration.

[boozehound]

CBS must also be considered a joke as it is the only network that forged documents to discredit a Presidential hopeful just weeks before the election. Sad. They have 0, none, nada credibility.

Further, what really bugs me is the WH has made claims that FOX is not news without proving that the network has reported lies. Just b/c they do not approve to the slant does not mean that the reporting is false. For instances of false reporting please see first paragraph. It makes me wonder what else network news has made up or not reported over the years to push a Leftist agenda.

I have no issue with the first part. As for the second part, I think that Fox News is going down a very slippery slope when they take a role in creating the news that they then report on, ala the Tea Parties. Encouraging viewers to participate in the protests and they reporting on them hurts their credibility in my opinion.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/08/fox-crosses-the-line-with_n_184805.html

Can you see Cronkite doing that?

[Strange Brew]

I have no issue with the first part. As for the second part, I think that Fox News is going down a very slippery slope when they take a role in creating the news that they then report on, ala the Tea Parties. Encouraging viewers to participate in the protests and they reporting on them hurts their credibility in my opinion.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/08/fox-crosses-the-line-with_n_184805.html

Can you see Cronkite doing that?

Not sure if you are trying to bait me into discrediting the Huff post and Media Matters as legitimate news sources or not. But I can say that I went to the April Tea Party and was not prompted nor did I find out about it from FNC. The 9/12 movement was worth promoting (like NBC promotes "Green Week") for FNC b/c it was different and HUGE. So to answer your wonder as to if FNC created the Tea Party movement. I can say definitively. Not in my or my wife's case (a former A-Political individual).

Cronkite? Maybe, he mis-represented the Tet offensinve in Vietnam as a catastrophic blow to the US war effort and as a result of his reporting turned the US against its own soldiers. So I guess I could see Uncle Walt misrepresenting the news to suit his purposes. He is a recently self-outed Lib if you were wondering.

[DC Muskie]

I think it's absolutely hilarious that people somehow think the media are some sort of independant, unbias section of society.

Or that they should be.

And than people argue about who's more unbias and better. Who cares? You get your news where you get it, I'll get it from where I do.

There are far more important things to aruge about than whether or not you think Fox News is fair and balanced. If they have to say it, then it's probably not true.

[Xpectations]

I think it's absolutely hilarious that people somehow think the media are some sort of independant, unbias section of society.

Or that they should be.

And than people argue about who's more unbias and better. Who cares? You get your news where you get it, I'll get it from where I do.

There are far more important things to aruge about than whether or not you think Fox News is fair and balanced. If they have to say it, then it's probably not true.

So you believe that the Obama Administration is completely ridiculous for singling out Fox News as being a biased, non-news organization but not others?

If so, we're in agreement.

[DC Muskie]

So you believe that the Obama Administration is completely ridiculous for singling out Fox News as being a biased, non-news organization but not others?

If so, we're in agreement.

Yes. They have bigger things to worry about than what Fox News is or is not doing.

Today we are going to launch a rocket into space. Fo the simple reason to see if we can send people back to the moon. I have no idea why we waste resources trying to figure out how to fly people to the moon. That should take priority over Fox News.

[bobbiemcgee]

Leno- "President Obama today agreed to commit an additional 40,000 troops to help fight Fox News"

[blobfan]

I think it's absolutely hilarious that people somehow think the media are some sort of independant, unbias section of society.

Or that they should be.

And than people argue about who's more unbias and better. Who cares? You get your news where you get it, I'll get it from where I do.

There are far more important things to aruge about than whether or not you think Fox News is fair and balanced. If they have to say it, then it's probably not true.

Part of the problem is that the news organizations DO think they are unbiased. They believe they hold a public trust. Don't they claim to represent the third estate, that is to say, we the people who don't hold power?

If they recognized their own fallability as humans, I think they'd do a better job. Instead they seem to say: we the media are unbiased by definition, ergo everything we do is without bias.

[DC Muskie]

Part of the problem is that the news organizations DO think they are unbiased. They believe they hold a public trust. Don't they claim to represent the third estate, that is to say, we the people who don't hold power?

If they recognized their own fallability as humans, I think they'd do a better job. Instead they seem to say: we the media are unbiased by definition, ergo everything we do is without bias.

Then what exactly is the problem? Everyone seems to be in on the joke that is the bias of media. So why do people get all worked up about it?

Media is selling you a product. They have the freedom to express themselves. You have the freedom to but it or not.

Millions of people watch Fox. They go on about their day. Millions of people read the New York Times. They go on about their day. Soemtimes these people cross paths and than argue about who is bias and who isn't. Neither group would dare change their news source.

[Strange Brew]

Then what exactly is the problem? Everyone seems to be in on the joke that is the bias of media. So why do people get all worked up about it?

Media is selling you a product. They have the freedom to express themselves. You have the freedom to but it or not.

Millions of people watch Fox. They go on about their day. Millions of people read the New York Times. They go on about their day. Soemtimes these people cross paths and than argue about who is bias and who isn't. Neither group would dare change their news source.

I think the point is that people are a little concerned that the POTUS is demonizing a news (whether you think it is or not) network b/c he can. Can you imagine if Bush went after MSNBC? Heck, he didn't publically say a word when CBS forged documents (Forging military docs is a Fed felony) to discredit him. I think we miss the point of the arguement when we argue about is FOX this or is PBS that. The issue is, should a President be able to use the influence of the office to attack and attempt to silence a Free Press whether you agree with the slant of its reporting?

I say no.

[boozehound]

I think the point is that people are a little concerned that the POTUS is demonizing a news (whether you think it is or not) network b/c he can. Can you imagine if Bush went after MSNBC? Heck, he didn't publically say a word when CBS forged documents (Forging military docs is a Fed felony) to discredit him. I think we miss the point of the arguement when we argue about is FOX this or is PBS that. The issue is, should a President be able to use the influence of the office to attack and attempt to silence a Free Press whether you agree with the slant of its reporting?

I say no.

I agree with you that the president should not actively attempt to discredit a news organization. I am not an Obama supporter, but in the interest of Fairness lets not act like the Bush administration didn't push the envelope regarding what it is and is not appropriate for a President to do. The attempt to politicize the justice system and the whole Alberto Gonzalez thing would be an example of Bush overstepping.

I have no problem with critisizing Obama for any of the stupid things that he has done, but lets not act like the Bush administration never tried to abuse the office of POTUS in any way...

[Strange Brew]

I agree with you that the president should not actively attempt to discredit a news organization. I am not an Obama supporter, but in the interest of Fairness lets not act like the Bush administration didn't push the envelope regarding what it is and is not appropriate for a President to do. The attempt to politicize the justice system and the whole Alberto Gonzalez thing would be an example of Bush overstepping.

I have no problem with critisizing Obama for any of the stupid things that he has done, but lets not act like the Bush administration never tried to abuse the office of POTUS in any way...

"The Alberto Gonzalez thing" was misreported by the media. The fired individuals serve at the pleasure of the Executive office. Clinton fired many, odd that nothing was made of it. Don't you think?

[boozehound]

"The Alberto Gonzalez thing" was misreported by the media. The fired individuals serve at the pleasure of the Executive office. Clinton fired many, odd that nothing was made of it. Don't you think?

Come on. I know that you lean so far to the right that George Bush could have publicly disemboweled an orphan on the White House lawn they day before he election and you would still have voted for him, but the difference between the Gonzalez scandal and Clinton firing federal attorneys is that no e-mails were ever found from the Clinton administration discussing the intent to politicize the justice system and Clinton didn't back his attorney general when he was clearly guilty of about 10,000 counts of perjury. Clinton had his own issues, don't get me wrong, but can we at least be fair when we are evaluating past presidents?

If you want to go the "democrats are all evil and republicans are all good" line, that is fine with me, althought it frustrates me because I feel it is indicative of the "party line" politics that has essentially caused the wheels of our government machine to come to a grinding halt. I don't find it realisitic to think that Obama and his administration are evil while the Bush administration was filled with saints just because of party affiliation.

If you really look at his behavior you could make a pretty good argument that Bush wasn' really even a republican, at least not fiscally. People are now up in arms about Obama's fiscal irresponsibility, but Bush was almost as bad.

[DC Muskie]

I think the point is that people are a little concerned that the POTUS is demonizing a news (whether you think it is or not) network b/c he can. Can you imagine if Bush went after MSNBC? Heck, he didn't publically say a word when CBS forged documents (Forging military docs is a Fed felony) to discredit him. I think we miss the point of the arguement when we argue about is FOX this or is PBS that. The issue is, should a President be able to use the influence of the office to attack and attempt to silence a Free Press whether you agree with the slant of its reporting?

I say no.

Brew-

I can't believe you are taking this so seriously. The Bush Administration paid journalists to promote their agenda.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/29/politics/29column.html

Do you somehow think Fox News is actually upset over the fact that the President thinks they suck? I mean really do you think the fundamentals of free speech are at stake here, when four years ago the president of the United States acknowledged paying columnists and commentators to promote their side of an argument?

It's stupid for the office of the presidency to waste time telling a business that they are full of it. It's even dumber for people to somehow think any of these news agencies or either side of the aisle has some sort of upper hand in ethical conduct when it comes to this subject.

[Kahns Krazy]

I can't say enough times how annoyed I am that the current administration points to the last one's actions to defend itself. Last I heard during the election, the current administration was telling us how shitty the last one was. It's reassuring to know that "Change you can believe in" is code for "Same old shit in Washington, just twice as expensive."

Back on topic, I actually tried to watch Kathy Griffin on Leno the other night. I tried to be objective. Then I realized I just couldn't be. I turned it off. Leno sucks too.

[nuts4xu]

Leno sucks too.

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Entertainment/images-2/tonight-show-jay-leno.jpg

[DC Muskie]

I can't say enough times how annoyed I am that the current administration points to the last one's actions to defend itself. Last I heard during the election, the current administration was telling us how shitty the last one was. It's reassuring to know that "Change you can believe in" is code for "Same old shit in Washington, just twice as expensive."

You know what funny about this, you could have written it in 2001 and change "Change you can believe in" to "Compassionate Conservative" but keep the same code.

It's amazing that Americans buy into campaigns than acted shocked that they are not fulfilled.

[Kahns Krazy]

Seriously? You just did a "the last administration did it to" to defend how the current administration is doing the "the last administration did it too" bull? Wow.

I don't remember "compassionate conservative" propaganda posters.

http://www.barackobamabooks.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/change-we-can-believe-in-obama-books.jpg

[Snipe]

Not sure if you are trying to bait me into discrediting the Huff post and Media Matters as legitimate news sources or not. But I can say that I went to the April Tea Party and was not prompted nor did I find out about it from FNC. The 9/12 movement was worth promoting (like NBC promotes "Green Week") for FNC b/c it was different and HUGE. So to answer your wonder as to if FNC created the Tea Party movement. I can say definitively. Not in my or my wife's case (a former A-Political individual).

Cronkite? Maybe, he mis-represented the Tet offensinve in Vietnam as a catastrophic blow to the US war effort and as a result of his reporting turned the US against its own soldiers. So I guess I could see Uncle Walt misrepresenting the news to suit his purposes. He is a recently self-outed Lib if you were wondering.

I asked him for a list of legitimate news sources, and all we get are more bashing of Fox News from Media Matters and The Huffington Post. It really is funny that someone would charge Fox News with bias by quoting Media Matters and the Huffington Post.

[Snipe]

I have no issue with the first part. As for the second part, I think that Fox News is going down a very slippery slope when they take a role in creating the news that they then report on, ala the Tea Parties. Encouraging viewers to participate in the protests and they reporting on them hurts their credibility in my opinion.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/08/fox-crosses-the-line-with_n_184805.html

Can you see Cronkite doing that?

The Tea Parties were not created by Fox News. They were reported on by Fox News. They were promoted by people that work at Fox News, such as Glen Beck. But they were not created by Fox News. I attended the initial Cincinnati Tea Party, and it was no creation of Fox News. And I didn't see anyone with the guns you mentioned earlier either. Just about everyone I met had never been to a political protest.

Lets talk about "going down a very slippery slope when they take a role in creating the news that they then report on".

http://www.targetofopportunity.com/sheehan_with_sharpton.jpg

Rev. Al Sharpton and the grieving mother Cindy Sheehan share a private moment...

http://www.targetofopportunity.com/sheehan_with_sharpton_wide.jpg

Do you ever wonder what happened to Cindy Sheehan. To her credit she is still protesting. She went to Martha's Vineyard when Obama went on vacation there. What did ABC's Charles Gibson have to say? "Enough Already" (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/ABCs-Charles-Gibson-to-Cindy-Sheehan-Thanks-for-your-sacrifice-Now-get-lost-53803917.html) ABC used to report on candle light vigils in support of Sheehan. They devoted weeks of coverage to her when Bush was in the White House. Did the press go down a slippery slope and take a role in creating the news that they were reporting on?

This year at the leftwing Netroots Nation Convention, which is a convention of influential lefty bloggers were asked what issue that spent the most time advancing. Working to end US Involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan came in last place, with 1% of the participants. Yet these same wars were the animating factor of the campaign against George Bush. To a lot of people, it appears that opposing the war was just politics. Now that Obama is in place, Cindy Sheehan just isn't hip. It wasn't the war at all.

"The "anti-war" "left" was used by the Democratic Party. I like to call it the "anti-Republican War" movement." - Cindy Sheehan. I would also add that she was used by the media which now is telling her "Enough Already". Imagine if Bush would have told her that.

"I did not support Operation Desert Fox. It's just that you didn't know me very well back then. Nobody really was interested in listening to me back then." Then she added, by way of explaining why the anti-Clinton protests never gelled, "It wasn't very hip." - Jeneane Garofalo.

It just isn't cool to protest war when Democrats are in office. The media seem to know this too.

[Strange Brew]

Come on. I know that you lean so far to the right that George Bush could have publicly disemboweled an orphan on the White House lawn they day before he election and you would still have voted for him, but the difference between the Gonzalez scandal and Clinton firing federal attorneys is that no e-mails were ever found from the Clinton administration discussing the intent to politicize the justice system and Clinton didn't back his attorney general when he was clearly guilty of about 10,000 counts of perjury. Clinton had his own issues, don't get me wrong, but can we at least be fair when we are evaluating past presidents?

If you want to go the "democrats are all evil and republicans are all good" line, that is fine with me, althought it frustrates me because I feel it is indicative of the "party line" politics that has essentially caused the wheels of our government machine to come to a grinding halt. I don't find it realisitic to think that Obama and his administration are evil while the Bush administration was filled with saints just because of party affiliation.

If you really look at his behavior you could make a pretty good argument that Bush wasn' really even a republican, at least not fiscally. People are now up in arms about Obama's fiscal irresponsibility, but Bush was almost as bad.

You shouldn't assume so much from one factual comment. Clinton cleaned house when he took office. The POTUS can fire them for anything. They serve at the pleasure of the office. End of a silly Bush committed some high crime arguement on this one.

Never said Obama was evil. Just stupid on this (Fox) issue

No, Bush was a Republican. He was not a Conservative. I'm neither now, more Libertarian if anything (don't give a crap what you do but leave me alone and stay out of my wallet). Yes, Bush spent waaaay to much money but Obama makes drunkin' sailors blush with the amount of money that he has spent (and is planning to spend).

[boozehound]

You shouldn't assume so much from one factual comment. Clinton cleaned house when he took office. The POTUS can fire them for anything. They serve at the pleasure of the office. End of a silly Bush committed some high crime arguement on this one.

Never said Obama was evil. Just stupid on this (Fox) issue

No, Bush was a Republican. He was not a Conservative. I'm neither now, more Libertarian if anything (don't give a crap what you do but leave me alone and stay out of my wallet). Yes, Bush spent waaaay to much money but Obama makes drunkin' sailors blush with the amount of money that he has spent (and is planning to spend).

How is Bush firing the attorneys because they serve 'at the pleasure of the office' any better than Obama attempting to discredit Fox News? I never argued that Bush committed a 'high crime', but I think that most would agree that a president conducting mass firings of US attorneys who don't agree with his political views is probably a bigger deal than a president badmouthing a news organization.

[boozehound]

The Tea Parties were not created by Fox News. They were reported on by Fox News. They were promoted by people that work at Fox News, such as Glen Beck. But they were not created by Fox News. I attended the initial Cincinnati Tea Party, and it was no creation of Fox News. And I didn't see anyone with the guns you mentioned earlier either. Just about everyone I met had never been to a political protest.

Lets talk about "going down a very slippery slope when they take a role in creating the news that they then report on".

http://www.targetofopportunity.com/sheehan_with_sharpton.jpg

Rev. Al Sharpton and the grieving mother Cindy Sheehan share a private moment...

http://www.targetofopportunity.com/sheehan_with_sharpton_wide.jpg

Do you ever wonder what happened to Cindy Sheehan. To her credit she is still protesting. She went to Martha's Vineyard when Obama went on vacation there. What did ABC's Charles Gibson have to say? "Enough Already" (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/ABCs-Charles-Gibson-to-Cindy-Sheehan-Thanks-for-your-sacrifice-Now-get-lost-53803917.html) ABC used to report on candle light vigils in support of Sheehan. They devoted weeks of coverage to her when Bush was in the White House. Did the press go down a slippery slope and take a role in creating the news that they were reporting on?

This year at the leftwing Netroots Nation Convention, which is a convention of influential lefty bloggers were asked what issue that spent the most time advancing. Working to end US Involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan came in last place, with 1% of the participants. Yet these same wars were the animating factor of the campaign against George Bush. To a lot of people, it appears that opposing the war was just politics. Now that Obama is in place, Cindy Sheehan just isn't hip. It wasn't the war at all.

"The "anti-war" "left" was used by the Democratic Party. I like to call it the "anti-Republican War" movement." - Cindy Sheehan. I would also add that she was used by the media which now is telling her "Enough Already". Imagine if Bush would have told her that.

"I did not support Operation Desert Fox. It's just that you didn't know me very well back then. Nobody really was interested in listening to me back then." Then she added, by way of explaining why the anti-Clinton protests never gelled, "It wasn't very hip." - Jeneane Garofalo.

It just isn't cool to protest war when Democrats are in office. The media seem to know this too.

If MSNBC encouraged Cindy Sheehan to protest, then yes. If Chris Matthews was on encouraging people to attend the protests, yes.

I can't believe that you don't see a difference between Fox News' "coverage" of the Tea Parties and MSNBC and other organizations covering Cindy Sheehan.

[Snipe]

in the interest of Fairness lets not act like the Bush administration didn't push the envelope regarding what it is and is not appropriate for a President to do. The attempt to politicize the justice system and the whole Alberto Gonzalez thing would be an example of Bush overstepping.




How is Bush firing the attorneys because they serve 'at the pleasure of the office' any better than Obama attempting to discredit Fox News? I never argued that Bush committed a 'high crime', but I think that most would agree that a president conducting mass firings of US attorneys who don't agree with his political views is probably a bigger deal than a president badmouthing a news organization.

There are 93 United States Attorneys. Barack Obama has already replaced roughly two-thirds of them. He may end up keeping a few, like Patrick Fitzgerald who is currently going after Blago and who investigated the Bush White House. But in the end just about all of them are going to go. They are going to be replaced for partizan political reasons.

Upon reaching office in 1993, William Jefferson Clinton demanded the resignation of ALL United States Attorneys.

They do serve at the pleasure of the President. They are political appointees. They are supposed to conduct the affairs of the Department of Justice in a way that is non-partizan and non-political. The way that they get appointed and fired though is a highly partizan political process. It was for Clinton. It was for Bush. It will be for Obama, and it will be for the next guy. It is the way the system works. I am not saying it is right or wrong, but it is what it is.

Does Obama's firing of the majority constitute an "attempt to politicize the justice system"? Is Obama "overstepping"? Is this "a president conducting mass firings of US attorneys who don't agree with his political views"? Looks to me that this is business as usual in Washington DC.

On the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts worked for the Department of Justice. Antonin Scalia, Stephen Breyer, and Samuel Alito all also worked for the DOJ. All were political appointments.

Clarence Thomas was an Assistant Attorney General in Missouri. Sonia Sotomayor worked as an assistant district attorney in New York. John Paul Stevens was Associate Counsel to the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. Once again, these were political appointments.

The United States Department of Justice is a grooming station and a proving ground for future Federal Judges and even in some cases Supreme Court Justices. That is why it is so important to both Republicans and Democrats. The way people get hired and fired from these positions is a highly partizan and highly political process.

[boozehound]

So the argument is that because every other administration does it is is OK? Isn't that kind of the same thing as the Obama backers' argument that his out of control spending isn't all that bad because Bush spent a ton of money too?

If in fact every administration cleans house of existing US Attorneys upon winning the White House then I think it represents a systemic flaw in the degree in which the White House can influence the justice department.

The entire way in which our government operates right now is a mess. I am not going to argue against that. I just don't think that Obama limiting Fox News' access to the White House is a big deal. I would say that the hiring and firing of US Attorneys on a whim is a much bigger deal than a president trying to subvert a news organization.

[Snipe]

So the argument is that because every other administration does it is is OK? Isn't that kind of the same thing as the Obama backers' argument that his out of control spending isn't all that bad because Bush spent a ton of money too?



They do serve at the pleasure of the President. They are political appointees. They are supposed to conduct the affairs of the Department of Justice in a way that is non-partizan and non-political. The way that they get appointed and fired though is a highly partizan political process. It was for Clinton. It was for Bush. It will be for Obama, and it will be for the next guy. It is the way the system works. I am not saying it is right or wrong, but it is what it is.


If in fact every administration cleans house of existing US Attorneys upon winning the White House then I think it represents a systemic flaw in the degree in which the White House can influence the justice department.




I didn't say it is OK because every administration does it. I clearly didn't take a side. By law these people are political appointees. The President can hire and fire them and that is what President's do.

What are the options? Change the law? If you do how do you change it? Let Congress do it? That is political. Have special elections? That is political. How could this ever be done by a process that is not political? Why shouldn't Obama be allowed to put in his own people? It is his administration. It is legal. But my problem is that you weren't complaining about Obama or about Clinton, you were complaining about Bush doing the exact same thing.

Just because something is political doesn't make it bad, wrong, corrupt or immoral. We use politics to make hard choices (or sometimes to avoid making them). If everyone agreed on something it wouldn't be a political issue. We reserve for politics the issues that divide us. All politics is by nature divisive. And interesting point though it is usually conservatives that are labled "divisive". Curious.

Feel free to come up with a better way to appoint or elect people to the Department of Justice. If it was easy it would have already have been done. And heres a news flash, the selection of Federal Judges and Supreme Court Justices is political too. Oh the partizan politics of it all!

[Snipe]

If MSNBC encouraged Cindy Sheehan to protest, then yes. If Chris Matthews was on encouraging people to attend the protests, yes.

I can't believe that you don't see a difference between Fox News' "coverage" of the Tea Parties and MSNBC and other organizations covering Cindy Sheehan.

Speaking of Chris Matthews, he wanted Cindy Sheehan to run for Congress:

MATTHEWS: “Are you considering running for Congress, Cindy?”

SHEEHAN: “No, not this time. I'm a one issue person. I know a lot about what's going on in Iraq but I don't know anything about anything else. And I want to focus my energy on bringing the troops home.”

MATTHEWS: “Okay. Well, I have to tell you, you sound more informed than most U.S. Congresspeople, so maybe you should run.”

If you look at the picture you can see that more media attended than people protesting. When the media covers something non-stop you could argue that they are championing a cause. In a similar vein, when the media ignore something it is also relevant. Bias isn't just what you cover or cover extensively ad naseum (Sheehan), it is what you don't cover.

Glenn Beck is not a journalist, nor does he claim to be one. He is paid to give his opinion. He supported the protests and he started the 9/12 project. The 9/12 protests were right up his alley. Should he not have supported his own publicly stated opinion? And when Beck was in the studio for the rally Fox blew away competators in the ratings.

Some media outlets that played up the war protests didn't cover or pay much attention to the tea party rallies. Why is that? If Fox is promoting them, what are the other networks doing when they don't cover them or even mock them? Much of the reporting outside of Fox was mocking and insulting to the protestors. Imagine them doing that to war protestors. You noted the people with guns protesting. I never saw any guns. The coverage was about guns, extremists, racists, bigots, and 'teabaggers' with plenty of gay sex references as a joke.

You have stated that these protests were all a creation of Fox News, which simply isn't the case. The movement was started by Rick Santelli of CNBC and in Cincinnati Fox News had nothing to do with the initial rallies. As the rallies grew, coverage grew, with Fox leading the way on coverage. Fox is a conservative newtork on balance, though they have liberal and moderate voices. The 9/12 march on Washington was perhaps the largest gathering of political conservatives in the history of this nation. For the conservative Fox News Network to ignore that like some of the other networks would have been media malpractice and detrimental for business.

[boozehound]

Speaking of Chris Matthews, he wanted Cindy Sheehan to run for Congress:

MATTHEWS: “Are you considering running for Congress, Cindy?”

SHEEHAN: “No, not this time. I'm a one issue person. I know a lot about what's going on in Iraq but I don't know anything about anything else. And I want to focus my energy on bringing the troops home.”

MATTHEWS: “Okay. Well, I have to tell you, you sound more informed than most U.S. Congresspeople, so maybe you should run.”

If you look at the picture you can see that more media attended than people protesting. When the media covers something non-stop you could argue that they are championing a cause. In a similar vein, when the media ignore something it is also relevant. Bias isn't just what you cover or cover extensively ad naseum (Sheehan), it is what you don't cover.

Glenn Beck is not a journalist, nor does he claim to be one. He is paid to give his opinion. He supported the protests and he started the 9/12 project. The 9/12 protests were right up his alley. Should he not have supported his own publicly stated opinion? And when Beck was in the studio for the rally Fox blew away competators in the ratings.

Some media outlets that played up the war protests didn't cover or pay much attention to the tea party rallies. Why is that? If Fox is promoting them, what are the other networks doing when they don't cover them or even mock them? Much of the reporting outside of Fox was mocking and insulting to the protestors. Imagine them doing that to war protestors. You noted the people with guns protesting. I never saw any guns. The coverage was about guns, extremists, racists, bigots, and 'teabaggers' with plenty of gay sex references as a joke.

You have stated that these protests were all a creation of Fox News, which simply isn't the case. The movement was started by Rick Santelli of CNBC and in Cincinnati Fox News had nothing to do with the initial rallies. As the rallies grew, coverage grew, with Fox leading the way on coverage. Fox is a conservative newtork on balance, though they have liberal and moderate voices. The 9/12 march on Washington was perhaps the largest gathering of political conservatives in the history of this nation. For the conservative Fox News Network to ignore that like some of the other networks would have been media malpractice and detrimental for business.

The whole point that started the back and forth was my belief that Fox News marginalizes itself by being a conservative network in a country that voted overwhelmingly Democratic in the last election. Just because a lot of people watch them does not mean that they are actually getting their news from that source. Many may be watching for the entertainment value of the pundits. MSNBC marginalized itself in some of the earlier Bush years by playing so far to the left in a country that was in a largely conservative mood following the events of 9/11.

As for Chris Matthews, he is easily as big of an asshat as anyone on Fox News. That is including Glenn Beck.

[boozehound]

I didn't say it is OK because every administration does it. I clearly didn't take a side. By law these people are political appointees. The President can hire and fire them and that is what President's do.

What are the options? Change the law? If you do how do you change it? Let Congress do it? That is political. Have special elections? That is political. How could this ever be done by a process that is not political? Why shouldn't Obama be allowed to put in his own people? It is his administration. It is legal. But my problem is that you weren't complaining about Obama or about Clinton, you were complaining about Bush doing the exact same thing.

Just because something is political doesn't make it bad, wrong, corrupt or immoral. We use politics to make hard choices (or sometimes to avoid making them). If everyone agreed on something it wouldn't be a political issue. We reserve for politics the issues that divide us. All politics is by nature divisive. And interesting point though it is usually conservatives that are labled "divisive". Curious.

Feel free to come up with a better way to appoint or elect people to the Department of Justice. If it was easy it would have already have been done. And heres a news flash, the selection of Federal Judges and Supreme Court Justices is political too. Oh the partizan politics of it all!

Partisan, not partizan. I really hate to correct you on that but it is driving me crazy.

Second, I'm not really that up on the matter, but if nothing about what the Bush administration did was wrong, why did Gonzales lie to Congress about it? Why not just tell the truth?

I never said anything about conservatives being divisive, Partisan politics are divisive. The problem that I have begins when people stop evaluating issues as individual issues and instead vote party line on everything.

[Xpectations]

Never said Obama was evil. Just stupid on this (Fox) issue

No, Bush was a Republican. He was not a Conservative. I'm neither now, more Libertarian if anything (don't give a crap what you do but leave me alone and stay out of my wallet). Yes, Bush spent waaaay to much money but Obama makes drunkin' sailors blush with the amount of money that he has spent (and is planning to spend).

Amen, brother!!! Couldn't have said it better myself. I gotta share a brew with you sometime at a game.

[Kahns Krazy]

The whole point that started the back and forth was my belief that Fox News marginalizes itself by being a conservative network in a country that voted overwhelmingly Democratic in the last election. Just because a lot of people watch them does not mean that they are actually getting their news from that source. Many may be watching for the entertainment value of the pundits. MSNBC marginalized itself in some of the earlier Bush years by playing so far to the left in a country that was in a largely conservative mood following the events of 9/11.

As for Chris Matthews, he is easily as big of an asshat as anyone on Fox News. That is including Glenn Beck.

52.9% is "bold" overwhelmingly? F the other 47%. They lost the election. They don't deserve a channel.

[xu95]

I love how everyone villanizes Fox News for being a right wing news agency, but try so hard to deny that MSNBC and CNN are VERY left wing news agencies.

xu95

[taxpayer]

Republican politicians = Democratic politicians/Republican President = Democratic President
With very few exceptions, abortion & military positions, they are basically for the same thing. Central government take over of everything. We are in some serious trouble if believe in OUR Constitution and limited government as our founders did.

[Fred Garvin]

I love how everyone villanizes Fox News for being a right wing news agency, but try so hard to deny that MSNBC and CNN are VERY left wing news agencies.

xu95

MSNBC and CNN aren't biased, at least that's what Boozehound read on the Huffington Post. BH, stop pretending to be a centrist when you are clearly an Ann Arbor bolshevik.

At least conservatives are man enough to admit their political persuasion.

[Xpectations]

It's hysterical to listen to Maddow and Olbermann explain why they're more legitimate than Fox.

[Snipe]

The whole point that started the back and forth was my belief that Fox News marginalizes itself by being a conservative network in a country that voted overwhelmingly Democratic in the last election.


I just want to let your words stand. That is impressive.

Not really sure even how to start to respond to that.

God Bless You.

[Snipe]

Republican politicians = Democratic politicians/Republican President = Democratic President
With very few exceptions, abortion & military positions, they are basically for the same thing. Central government take over of everything. We are in some serious trouble if believe in OUR Constitution and limited government as our founders did.

When the shit hits the fan, nobody will care about political distinctions. Nobody cares much now. They will care much less then.

[Snipe]

MSNBC and CNN aren't biased, at least that's what Boozehound read on the Huffington Post. BH, stop pretending to be a centrist when you are clearly an Ann Arbor bolshevik.

At least conservatives are man enough to admit their political persuasion.

He does have a point. Booze chastises me for Fox News and then uses Media Matters and The Huffington Post to refute arguments. Please. What a centrist he is.

I am a proud conservative.

[boozehound]

MSNBC and CNN aren't biased, at least that's what Boozehound read on the Huffington Post. BH, stop pretending to be a centrist when you are clearly an Ann Arbor bolshevik.

At least conservatives are man enough to admit their political persuasion.

What are you even talking about?

I never once stated that MSNBC or CNN were not biased, and in fact I went out of my way several times to state that I thought that MSNBC was at least as biased as Fox News. You are making no effort to support your point in a logical manner. At least Snipe has that going for him.

[boozehound]

When the shit hits the fan, nobody will care about political distinctions. Nobody cares much now. They will care much less then.

You follow this two posts later with a post proclaming that you are a proud conservative? Clearly you care.

[boozehound]

I just want to let your words stand. That is impressive.

Not really sure even how to start to respond to that.

God Bless You.

365-173 in the electoral college is pretty overwhelming, but it not popular vote, you are correct.

With regards to the popular vote the 53% - 46% margin that Obama won by was substantial compared to the 51% - 48% margin in the Bush-Kerry election and the even split in the Bush-Gore election. You have to go back to Clinton to find an election with a wider discrepancy.

[Strange Brew]

365-173 in the electoral college is pretty overwhelming, but it not popular vote, you are correct.

With regards to the popular vote the 53% - 46% margin that Obama won by was substantial compared to the 51% - 48% margin in the Bush-Kerry election and the even split in the Bush-Gore election. You have to go back to Clinton to find an election with a wider discrepancy.

2 pts is a substantial difference? Hahahahahahahhaha, seriously, straws are hard to grasp.

You're right, but Clinton never got 50% ((that darn Ross Perot (sp?)). The last true landslide was in '84. By the way, you avoided Snipe's point on the judges "travesty" (LOL) that you propagated.

[jdm2000]

Not to nitpick, but that is what we do on message boards...2 points in both directions is a four point difference. Hence the margin went from 3 points to 7 points.

Or, to put it another way, Obama's margin of victory was twice the size of the margin Bush 43 used as his mandate.

[Strange Brew]

Not to nitpick, but that is what we do on message boards...2 points in both directions is a four point difference. Hence the margin went from 3 points to 7 points.

Or, to put it another way, Obama's margin of victory was twice the size of the margin Bush 43 used as his mandate.

Well done, good point. I would and did argue that 43 did not have a mandate. Reagan was/is the last POTUS to have a true mandate. However, the media oddly enough would like us to think otherwise.

[jdm2000]

I'd agree with that. Obama didn't have a Reaganesque mandate, but it was quite a bit more substantial win than Bush 43 managed to pull off.

I think it will be hard to foresee a Reagan in 1984 or LBJ in 1964 (or Nixon, etc.) type victory any time soon, unless one of the parties nominates an absolutely polarizing and unelectable candidate (like, say, the GOP nominating Palin or the Dems nominating Nancy Pelosi).

[boozehound]

2 pts is a substantial difference? Hahahahahahahhaha, seriously, straws are hard to grasp.

You're right, but Clinton never got 50% ((that darn Ross Perot (sp?)). The last true landslide was in '84. By the way, you avoided Snipe's point on the judges "travesty" (LOL) that you propagated.

I am pretty sure that I addressed that somewhere, but I am not going to go back through and find it. I believe that my point was something along the lines of "If you did it, and it was OK to do it, why lie about it to congress?"

My whole point was that Fox marginalizes itself by playing so far to the right. It is a defensible argument. Despite the words that have been put into my mouth I never said "Fox News is biased but CNN and MSNBC are fair and balanced". I simply said that Fox News is biased. Quite simply, I am surprised by the depth of the "How dare you question Fox News" response. I thought that it was pretty universally regarded that Fox News had a right wing bias. If you want your news slanted to the right you watch Fox News, if you want it slanted to the left you watch MSNBC or CNN.

[boozehound]

Well done, good point. I would and did argue that 43 did not have a mandate. Reagan was/is the last POTUS to have a true mandate. However, the media oddly enough would like us to think otherwise.

Reagan beat Carter 51% to 41% in the popular vote in 1980.

In 1984 Reagan beat Mondale 59% to 41%. That 18% spread was very significant and you could definitely argue that it constitutes a mandate from the people. I probably would.

In 1996 Bill Clinton beat Bush Sr. 53% to 47% in the popular vote.

While Clinton didn't get to 50% in the 1996 election Dole did not reach 41%. I wouldn't call that a mandate, but it is a significant margin of victory.

There have been some significant spreads since then, but the argument is sound that Reagon was the last president to have a true mandate. He was a good president.

I'm not sure about your last comment about "the media would like us to think otherwise". Are you referring to the Obama or Clinton? I seem to remember the media being very infatuated with Clinton. I know that Obama acts like he thinks he has a mandate but I haven't heard a lot of media noise about it, personally. I also don't watch MSNBC or CNN...

I think that a lot of the "mandate from the people" noise that you get may be referring to the "Super Majority" in Congress that democrats are enjoying right now. Like it or not if you look at the total political landscape that pendulum as swung quite far to the left in recent years. In a few more years the pendulum will swing to the right again. I don't know that I think that it matters. Even with their Super Majority the Democrats haven't been able to drive any significant progress on a universal health care bill (thankfully).

It's all basically theatre as far as I am concerned and little of consequence actually gets done.

[DC Muskie]

Seriously? You just did a "the last administration did it to" to defend how the current administration is doing the "the last administration did it too" bull? Wow.

I don't remember "compassionate conservative" propaganda posters.

You're basically surprised one administration blames it's problems on the last administration. You're basically stating you are shocked that politicans act like politicians.

If you don't remember "compassionate conservative" propaganda posters then you just weren't paying attention. That the was the theme of Bush's 2000 campaign.

[DC Muskie]

However, the media oddly enough would like us to think otherwise.

See this is basically why this entire thread is such a waste of time.

The media has tried to tell brew that Reagan didn't have a mandate. But somehow brew managed to figure out that Reagan did have a mandate. Even though all of these guys have mandates because they were elected. Plain and simple. When you are elected President of United States, you are not president just a little less because you won with a lesser margin. Or vice versa.

Oh my gosh they are left wing media outlets out here who are trying to make sure people know that Reagan didn't have a mandate!

Do people seriously think they will be brainwashed by what they see on television or read? Jeez. Especially on a subject manner that hardly needs to be discussed? On mandates of elected people? Seriously?

[Snipe]

Barney Frank is one of the few politicians with an actual man date.

[boozehound]

Barney Frank is one of the few politicians with an actual man date.

If I was drinking something I would have spit it all over the screen. Nice one. Way to lighten the mood.

Xavier basketball starts tomorrow so we can all stop arguing about politics and washed up comedians and start arguing about basketball...

[Kahns Krazy]

You're basically surprised one administration blames it's problems on the last administration. You're basically stating you are shocked that politicans act like politicians.

If you don't remember "compassionate conservative" propaganda posters then you just weren't paying attention. That the was the theme of Bush's 2000 campaign.

Can you come up with an image of the compassionate conservative posters? I really dont remember it. I can't find it by searching the internet. Of course, this internet this is fairly new, so it may not be out there yet.


I do remember this:

http://obamamedia.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/change-we-can-believe-in-800px.png


http://obama.3cdn.net/637def08fdb3e24fb6_4wamvyu5c.jpg


http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Business/images-2/barack-obama-change-we-can-believe-in.jpg

[DC Muskie]

I'm not as good as Snipe when it comes to the internet machine. But here's something that talks about the 2000 campaign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_presidential_campaign,_2000


I'm still trying to figure out what your point is. That Obama's campaign slogan worked with people, or that Bush seemed to win without you knowing he had a slogan or posters that talked about the slogan, or that politicans never seem to deliver on their campaign slogans? Are you pissed about how Tippecanoe and Tyler Too never materialized?

[Strange Brew]

See this is basically why this entire thread is such a waste of time.

The media has tried to tell brew that Reagan didn't have a mandate. But somehow brew managed to figure out that Reagan did have a mandate. Even though all of these guys have mandates because they were elected. Plain and simple. When you are elected President of United States, you are not president just a little less because you won with a lesser margin. Or vice versa.

Oh my gosh they are left wing media outlets out here who are trying to make sure people know that Reagan didn't have a mandate!

Do people seriously think they will be brainwashed by what they see on television or read? Jeez. Especially on a subject manner that hardly needs to be discussed? On mandates of elected people? Seriously?

Are you saying that I'm too stupid to look into things for myself?:D If so, I'm hurt. Thought we were cool like that DC. Anyway, you're right about the news being biased and the pointlessness of us getting our X shorts in a bunch about it. However, before FOX I wonder what was/was not reported by BIG NETWORK and BIG PAPER (isn't it fun to call something "BIG WHATEVER" to demonize it?).

Also, I noticed you made a comment again about people who think that they know what the Founders were thinking. But, by ridiculing them aren't you implying that you...in fact...understand their thought processes yourself? No offense, just found that humorous.

[Kahns Krazy]

You're basically surprised one administration blames it's problems on the last administration. You're basically stating you are shocked that politicans act like politicians.

If you don't remember "compassionate conservative" propaganda posters then you just weren't paying attention. That the was the theme of Bush's 2000 campaign.


I'm not as good as Snipe when it comes to the internet machine. But here's something that talks about the 2000 campaign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_presidential_campaign,_2000


I'm still trying to figure out what your point is. That Obama's campaign slogan worked with people, or that Bush seemed to win without you knowing he had a slogan or posters that talked about the slogan, or that politicans never seem to deliver on their campaign slogans? Are you pissed about how Tippecanoe and Tyler Too never materialized?

It wasn't my point. It was yours. You claimed that there were propaganda posters and that I "just wasn't paying attention." Your wikipedia article mentions no posters. I believe I was paying attention, and that there was no such thing.

If I were to make a point, it would be that you frequently make shit up, and when you get called on it, you make outrageous comparisons, like Tippecanoe and Tyler Too to cover for the fact that you're basically a windbag. You've gotten so used to saying "The republicans did it too" that you use it even when it's not true.

[DC Muskie]

My bad Kahns, I forgot you are the great referee here and I strayed off point. You're right, Obama was better at making posters. You got me!

I'm just so suprised a smart guy like yourself has no knowledge of history, because you you can only seem to remember what happened yesterday, that someohow the Deomocratic party, or this particular adimistration holds the monopoly on blaming past administrations. You're probably upset that sun also rises in the east, and upset that I tend to disagree with you when it comes to this sort of silly shit. But I'm a windbag, so what do I know, right? I can't produce, what did you call them, "propaganda posters" from an election nine years ago, while you have readily available posters from from one year ago. My gosh, all I could do was give you a site that said the Bush Campaign slogan of "Compassionate Conserative" was used a lot, but somehow they were smart enough not to put in on any posters. Must have been one hell of an underground operation.

I'll remember the next time not to use some obsecure historical reference of propaganda from past elections like Tippecanoe and Tyler Too to describe failure campaign promises like your orginal point when you chime in that "Change we can believe in" is really just "Same old shit in Washington, just twice as expensive."

I guess the only difference here is that change means, "more posters."

[DC Muskie]

Are you saying that I'm too stupid to look into things for myself?:D If so, I'm hurt. Thought we were cool like that DC. Anyway, you're right about the news being biased and the pointlessness of us getting our X shorts in a bunch about it. However, before FOX I wonder what was/was not reported by BIG NETWORK and BIG PAPER (isn't it fun to call something "BIG WHATEVER" to demonize it?).

I'm just saying how in the world did we elect Republicans to the highest levels of government when before FOX, the entire industry was trying to convince the public they were basically all fools? I'm not calling you stupid, brew, I commending you for overcoming!


Also, I noticed you made a comment again about people who think that they know what the Founders were thinking. But, by ridiculing them aren't you implying that you...in fact...understand their thought processes yourself? No offense, just found that humorous.

As an admitted windbag, who tends to make shit up, as noted above, I can say the following:

I like to think I know more than the average person. That in fact most of the policitians of our early years flip flopped on positions, didn't neccessarily believe that Jesus Christ is our Savior, and yes in fact blamed troubles of thier administriation on past administrations. There were some who wanted a strong central federal government and others who wanted more state freedoms. I also know they had no idea what the future would bring, but there are many people here when the government does something, like to revert back to the Founding Fathers and act like they were sitting right there with them as they wrote up the Consitituion. Now yes that might be funny, but that's what us windbags do.

[nuts4xu]

FWIW, this thread is just plain gay.

It is more gay than an Elton John concert.

[Kahns Krazy]

I guess we agree that politicians are in general worthless. As a Republican most of my life, I was really hoping that I was going to be wrong this time. I won't say that I believed in "change we can believe in", but I held on to some optimism that if enough other people believed it, that would be enough.

I also felt pretty good about the chances that this administration wouldn't screw up as bad as the last one. W sucked. He was a buffoon. The one thing that I think was a good thing overall, the Medicare Part D Prescription Benefit, got so badly implemented that it's probably going to get swallowed up in some version of reform.

So politicians are Lucy, and I'm Charlie Brown. I want to believe that they're going to let me kick the ball, but they never do. If anything, I'm frustrated at myself for clinging to any hope.

[waggy]

HA! I think we're more like the football...

[DC Muskie]

My favorite is when policitians say they ran for office out a sense of duty. Yup. Nothing like becoming incredibly powerful and rich. The United States is the only place where ordinary people can "work" to become rich and powerful by convincing others that they are sincere.

[Snipe]

It is all a pack of lies.

[Kahns Krazy]

My favorite is when policitians say they ran for office out a sense of duty. Yup. Nothing like becoming incredibly powerful and rich. The United States is the only place where ordinary people can "work" to become rich and powerful by convincing others that they are sincere.

Sincere like the Pumpkin Patch.

Maybe we're hearing it wrong. Maybe they are running out of a sense of doodie. That would make more sense.

[Kahns Krazy]

FWIW, this thread is just plain gay.

It is more gay than an Elton John concert.

One of my favorite lines from the Office was when Pam started the "Finer Things" club, and Oscar said "Other than having sex with men, this is the gayest thing I've ever done."